Industrial Relations in Ireland 4th Ed - Look Inside Sample

Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
List of Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
Chapter 1 Industrial Relations: a Contextual and Theoretical Overview

Introduction: What Do We Mean by Industrial Relations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Contextual Setting of Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
History and Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Economics and Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Politics in Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Role of Theory in Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Pluralist Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Unitary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Radical or Class Conflict Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Social Action Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Systems Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Conclusion and Critique of Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Concluding Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Chapter 2 Collective Labour Law in a Historical, Social and Political

Context
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Early Legal Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Criminal Law and Collective Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
The Civil Law and Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Collective Legislation, 19221990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
The Operation of Voluntarism in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
The Debate on Legal Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
The Industrial Relations Act 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Trade Disputes and Trade Union Provisions of the 1990 Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Continuity and Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
The Operation of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
The Nolan Transport Cases, 19931998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
The Constitution and Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
The Constitution in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
00 IR.indd 5 25/03/2013 11:12

vi industrial relations in ireland
The Industrial Relations Acts 20012004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Contemporary International Legal Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
The ILO Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
International Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Commentary on Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Chapter 3Trade Unions

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
What Are Trade Unions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
The Origins and Growth of Trade Unions up to the 1970s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
How to Establish a Trade Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Types of Trade Unions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
How Trade Unions Are Governed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Irish Congress of Trade Unions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Why Do People Join or Not Join Trade Unions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
A Comparative Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Why Do Individuals Decide to Join Unions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Why Does a Decline in Unionisation Matter? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Trade Union Responses to Decline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Rationalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Recruitment and Organising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Union Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Alternatives to Trade Unions? Internal Company Associations and Civil
Society Organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Chapter 4Employer Organisations

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Employer Objectives in Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
What Are Employer Organisations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Employer Organisations in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Construction Industry Federation (CIF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association (ISME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Other Employer Organisations in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Membership of Employer Organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Advantages and Disadvantages of Employer Organisation Membership . . . . . . 83
The Governing Structure of Employer Organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
IBECs Organisational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
00 IR.indd 6 25/03/2013 11:12

contents vii
Chapter 5Dispute Resolution and Wage-setting Institutions

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Labour Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Industrial Relations Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Employment Law Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Investigations and Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Industrial Relations Act 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Labour Relations Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Workplace Mediation Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Advisory Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Rights Commissioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Reform of Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Dispute Resolution in the Public Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Wage-setting Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Joint Industrial Councils (JICs) and Joint Labour Committees (JLCs) . . . . . . . 107
Challenges to JLCs and JICs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Chapter 6 Individual Employment Law

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
The Contract of Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Dismissal and the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Fair Dismissal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Capability/Competence/Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Any Other Substantial Reason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Constructive Dismissal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Unfair Dismissal Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Unfair Dismissals Acts 19772007 in Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
EAT Usage, Case Processing and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Employment Equality and the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Equal Pay and Employment Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Redress Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
The Process of Referring an Equality Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Maternity Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Health and Safety at Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Common and Statute Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Organisation of Working Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Young People at Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
00 IR.indd 7 25/03/2013 11:12

viii industrial relations in ireland
Minimum Notice Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Terms of Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Wage Payment Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Part-time and Fixed-term Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Pensions Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Data Protection Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Redundancy Payments Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Protection of Employment Acts 19772007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Protection of Employees (Employers Insolvency) Acts 19842004 . . . . . . . . . . 133
Transfer of Undertakings Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Institutional Initiatives and Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Chapter 7 Collective and Individual Workplace Procedures

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
The Nature of Collective Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Workplace Collective Agreements and the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Evolution of Workplace Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Management Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Legal and Institutional Influences Promoting Procedural Regulation . . . . . . . . . 142
Extent of Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Alternative Conflict Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Bullying and Harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Handling Grievances and Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Grievances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
The Interview Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Recordkeeping: Administrative and Legal Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Chapter 8The Management of Industrial Relations

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Contextual Influences: External and Internal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Management Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Towards Strategic Industrial Relations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
HRM Implications for the Management of Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Management Values, Frames of Reference and Management Styles in
Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
The Management of Industrial Relations in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
00 IR.indd 8 25/03/2013 11:12

contents ix
Chapter 9The Nature of Industrial Conflict

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Identifying Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Nature and Forms of Industrial Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Classifying Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Individual Unorganised Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Collective Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Crossover Between Individual and Collective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Conflict and the Conceptual Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Unitarism Developed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Human Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Neo Human Relations and HRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Pluralism Developed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Institutional Pluralism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Marxism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Radicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Consideration of Differing Conceptual Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Functions of Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
The Dual Face of Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Chapter 10Strikes and Lockouts as Forms of Organised Conflict

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Historical Importance of Strikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Strike Causes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Explanations for Strikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Cyclical Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Sectoral Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Political Factors and Collective Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Measurement of Strikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Strike Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Trends in Irish Strike Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
International and Industrial Policy Influences on Strike Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
A Consideration of Current Strike Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Public and Private Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Official and Unofficial Strikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
National and International Influences on Recent Irish Strike Activity . . . . . . . . 211
00 IR.indd 9 25/03/2013 11:12

x industrial relations in ireland
Chapter 11Negotiations
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Negotiation: Concepts and Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Strategic Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Negotiation Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Compromise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Negotiations and Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Types of Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Distributive Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Integrative Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Approaches to Integrative Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Mixed Motive Negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
The Negotiation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Stage 1: Preparation for Negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Administrative Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Negotiating Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
The Bargaining Mix and Prioritising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Bargaining Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Team Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Stage 2: Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Opening Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Middle Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Movement and Solution Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Indicating Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Size of Offers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Trading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Responding to Proposals/Offers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Adjournments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Closing Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Stage 3: Post-negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Negotiation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Integrative Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Enlarge the Pie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Negotiate on a Package Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Prioritise and Then Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Non-specific Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Cutting the Cost of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
00 IR.indd 10 25/03/2013 11:12

contents xi
Finding a Bridge Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Hardball Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Chapter 12Employee Involvement, Employee Participation and Workplace

Partnership
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Employee Involvement and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
The Dynamics of Employee Involvement and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Industrial Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Employee Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Employee Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Indirect Employee Involvement and Participation: Debates and
Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
A Comparative Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
The Debate in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
EU Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Developments in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Board-level Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
European Works Councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Information and Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Direct Forms of Involvement and Participation: Development and Diffusion . . . 253
Financial Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Empirical Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
High-performance Work Systems, Direct Involvement and the Quality of
Work Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Workplace Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
The Characteristics of Workplace Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Pressures for Workplace Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
The Diffusion of Workplace Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Chapter 13National Collective Bargaining

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
Theoretical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
Centralised Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Collective Bargaining and the Role of the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Individual Liberalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Corporatism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Neo-corporatism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Differing Forms of Neo-corporatism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
Contemporary Corporatist Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
00 IR.indd 11 25/03/2013 11:12

xii industrial relations in ireland
The Development of Irish Collective Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Wage Rounds, 19461970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Centralised Wage Agreements, 19701981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
The Performance of Centralised Bargaining, 19701981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Decentralised Bargaining, 19821987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
The Return to Centralised Agreements, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
Wage Terms of the Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
ATN and Local Bargaining Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Wage Tax Trade-Offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
Trade Unions and Their Approaches to Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
Employers and Their Approaches to Social Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
Social Provision and Involvement of the Community and Voluntary Sector . . . . 289
Economic Developments and Centralised Agreements, 19872009 . . . . . . . . . . 290
The Economic Crisis 20082009 and Collective Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
The Croke Park Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
A Retrospective on Contemporary Irish Collective Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
00 IR.indd 12 25/03/2013 11:12

Chapter 1
Industrial Relations:
A Contextual and Theoretical Overview
Introduction: What Do We Mean by Industrial Relations?

The subject area of industrial relations is one of the most-discussed specialist areas of
organisational and national economic management. The public prominence of the topic
is primarily attributable to its headline-making capacity when in the throes of industrial
action, mass redundancy or wage bargaining activities. These events materialise at plant,
industry and national level, commanding extensive media coverage and widespread
public interest and concern. However, the subject is frequently shrouded in confusion
and anxiety at the expense of insightful analysis a factor contributing to periodic
public pronouncements urging dramatic and often ill-conceived policy changes, e.g. to
outlaw strikes.
The primary focus of industrial relations or employee relations is on the employment
relationship of around 2 million employees in the Republic of Ireland, working
across all employment sectors and entity types. The term industrial relations (or
labour relations) has connotations of the traditional unionised blue-collar working
environment in the manufacturing sector, while the term employee relations conjures
up images of the non-union or less unionised white-collar services sector. In recent
years, the term employment relations which merges the more individualist employee
relations with the more collectivist industrial relations has gained currency. This text
retains the term industrial relations, not least because it is the one most commonly used
by practitioners, but also because it is used in legislation in Ireland. However, the text
covers both the collective and individual aspects of the employment relationship.
The subject itself can be best understood and interpreted in the wider context of the
historical, political, social and economic processes that have shaped the regulation of
working lives in this jurisdiction. That is, the subject draws upon a range of disciplines
to facilitate an understanding of both individual and collective relationships in white-
and blue-collar work environments and at plant, national and international levels. The
complexity of the subject necessitates consideration of an array of other specialisms in
order to accommodate a comprehensive analysis of all issues affecting people at work,
e.g. labour law, sociology, political science and labour economics.
Traditionally, the topic has been preoccupied with considerations about trade unions.
This emphasis, while understandable, fails to appreciate the importance of contextual
matters and contrasting (non-union) perspectives on the same phenomena. Both issues,
of the context and perspectives on industrial relations, are addressed in this opening
chapter. In so far as is possible, the text also attempts to adopt a factual and unbiased
approach to the study of the subject matter. However, the subjects very nature inevitably
means that many aspects of the topic are contentious. Accordingly, an effort is made in
01-03 IR.indd 1 25/03/2013 11:13

2 industrial relations in ireland
this text to take an independent line, while outlining the central strands of the differing
viewpoints that have been expressed on various dimensions of the subject.
A most attractive aspect of the subject is that it allows students to develop their
own opinions and to make up their own minds as to the merits of the contrasting
perspectives outlined. Of course, opinions need to be informed and this text adopts a
research-based approach. This is facilitated via a general overview of the more significant
contextual, theoretical, institutional, substantive and procedural aspects while reviewing
what are generally adjudged in the literature to be the more salient features and trends
in industrial relations. This text also addresses debatable dimensions of the subject,
including the range of political arguments and the plethora of factual data, which lend
themselves on occasion to a number of possible interpretations. The intention is to
encourage students to engage in debate and to form their own views on the matters in
question. However, it is important that the development of particular viewpoints and
perspectives be embedded in an appreciation of the many central features and facts
around which the industrial relations system operates. Accordingly, this text endeavours
to provide a balanced and comprehensive treatment of the topic without an undue
emphasis on any specific area. It is designed to address the key practical and theoretical
aspects of the subject. Should students wish to explore particular topics in more detail,
an extensive bibliography is provided.
In this chapter, readers are introduced to the topic via a contextual and theoretical over
view of the subject. This enables Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 to delve further into key features
associated with collective labour law (Chapter 2), trade unions (Chapter 3), employer
organisations (Chapter 4) and the associated institutional framework (Chapter5). Chapter6
outlines the extensive provisions and precedents established under individual employment
law. Chapter 7 explores theoretical and practical aspects of workplace procedures. Chapter
8 provides in-depth examination of the management of industrial relations. Chapter 9
provides insight into what is perhaps the most high-profile feature of the system: conflict
and industrial action. This enables Chapter 10 to explore the specific area of strikes and
the theory and practice of conflict resolution through negotiation is explored in Chapter
11. Employee participation and consultation (including workplace partnership) is covered
in Chapter 12, while Chapter 13 examines the evolution and development of collective
bargaining in Ireland (including national social partnership and its aftermath).
Figure 1.1 presents a working model or overview of the Irish system of industrial
relations. Each component of this model is outlined and critically evaluated at an
appropriate point in the text. In this opening chapter the main contrasting theoretical
perspectives and contextual factors that determine the shape of the industrial relations
system are reviewed. The system itself can be viewed from many perspectives. No single
perspective yields a full understanding, but each can add to our insights. The location
of five theoretical perspectives on the outer perimeter of Figure 1.1 is designed to
convey the potential of each of these theories to provide their own insights. That is,
these theoretical perspectives or frames of reference offer contrasting explanations of the
same phenomena or features of the industrial relations system. They are also reflected
in consequential decisions taken by the key actors therein, e.g. legal changes, union
recognition practices, etc.
01-03 IR.indd 2 25/03/2013 11:13

a contextual and theoretical overview 3
Figure 1.1
Model of the Irish System of Industrial Relations
Unitary Pluralist Marxist

perspective perspective perspective
Contextual influences
Historic International Economic Labour market Technological Political Legal Social Media
Third-party institutions
National level Organisation level Sectoral/industrial level

Bargaining Consultation Bargaining Consultation
Trade unions Conflict Co-operation Employer associations
Unionised Collective bargaining Top management

representation
Individual bargaining Personnel department
Non-union Procedural agreements
Line management
Substantive agreements
Involvement/participation
Systems Social action
perspective perspective
The prevalence of dual direction arrows depicts the relationship between the various
components of the system. This may be reflected in a vast array of exchanges, such as:
trade union opposition to legal intervention on grounds of history or tradition;
the reform of third-party dispute-settling agencies due to the nature and volume of
(conflict) cases coming before them; or
the impact of the terms of a collective agreement reached at national, industrial
or organisational level by employees and employer(s) (or their representative
organisations) on the state of the economy.
The Contextual Setting of Industrial Relations

Any initiative designed to analyse and prescribe in the area of Irish industrial relations
requires some familiarity with those prominent influences that have helped or forced
the system to adopt its present shape and character. Hence, Salamon (2000: 3) defines
industrial relations as encompassing a set of phenomena, both inside and outside the
workplace, concerned with determining and regulating the employment relationship.
The key features of this system can be more gainfully assessed from a knowledge base
spanning three centuries that has thrown up a vast range of economic, political and
social changes. While there has been a wide array of such interrelated influences, in
01-03 IR.indd 3 25/03/2013 11:13

this section an attempt is made to accommodate the more salient influences under the
interrelated themes of history, economics, the labour market and politics.
History and Industrial Relations

Historical factors are of particular relevance in developing an understanding of industrial
relations in Ireland today. For example, as the Industrial Revolution swept Britain in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with the advent of factory-cum-machine types of
production and the further concentration of population in the large industrial cities and
towns, trade unions emerged and grew. This was an attempt to redress the perceived
imbalance wrought by private enterprise capitalism and the prevalent laissez-faire
economic orthodoxy. At the time, this orthodoxy or economic system was underpinned
by the belief that the market was the only means by which all prices, including wages,
profits and economic priorities, should be determined. Therefore, trade unions were
identified as a threat to the prevalent economic, social and political order. Sidney and
Beatrice Webb (1897: 1) defined a trade union as a continuous association of wage
earners for the purpose of maintaining and improving the conditions of their working
lives. They identified the earliest such union as an association of London hatters in the
reign of Charles II (Boyd 1984). The first Irish trade union to be identified by name was
the Regular Carpenters of Dublin, which it is estimated was founded in 1764.
There is also evidence that there were several unions or combinations active in the
Cork area in the middle of the eighteenth century. Their activities included organising
strikes, picketing, destroying tools, materials and machinery, and ostracising employers
who would not give in to their demands. Eventually Parliament declared that anyone
in Cork city found guilty of being a member of an unlawful trade union should be
imprisoned not above six months, whipped in public and released only on giving
recognisance of good behaviour for seven years (Boyd 1972: 14). From 1770 there is
an account of two weavers who were found guilty of combination and were whipped
through the streets of Dublin from Newgate Prison to College Green. In 1780 the
Irish Parliament passed further legislation for the suppression of all trade unions, while
members of the Irish clergy had condemned unions as iniquitous extortions (Boyd
1972: 10). Despite the legal and social pressures, unions maintained their influence,
as individual employers disregarded the legal scenario and negotiated with them. The
states role at this time was one of facilitating the unfettered operation of the free market
and to confront and control any challenge which was considered to be in restraint of
trade (e.g. trade unions). Consequently, by the beginning of the nineteenth century a
series of statutory and judicial decisions (dating back to 1729) had served to make them
illegal under a variety of headings.
The official hostility towards trade unions may be primarily attributed to the
aforementioned laissez-faire economic religion of the time. This debarred any
interference with the laws of supply and demand in the marketplace. However, the
minority ruling class also feared the onset of civil disturbance. This had already been
witnessed in the Irish rural context, with such secret societies as the Whiteboys and the
Ribbonmen, and had been central to the outbreak of the French Revolution of 1789.
01-03 IR.indd 4 25/03/2013 11:13

The ruling class were also disturbed by the ideas of democracy and republicanism, which
subsequently spread throughout Europe, and trade unions were wrongly indentified as
a factor in the French Revolution.
Irish craft workers unions continued to surface, to a large extent as a branch of their
unions in the United Kingdom, of which Ireland was a part at that time. According to
Grda (1994), in the earlier part of the nineteenth century most crafts in Irish towns
and cities appear to have been highly unionised. In a society plagued by unemployment,
destitution and illness, the skilled tradesmen enjoyed a relatively privileged place in
society by virtue of their relatively high wages and permanent employment. For the
purpose of maintaining that position, they sought to increase the value of their trade by
restricting access to it via an apprenticeship system. Such apprenticeships were generally
confined to relatives. In addition, the craft unions endeavoured to increase the security
of their members by providing mutual unemployment and sick benefits.
Inter-union co-operation in Ireland formally emerged for the first time in the shape
of trades councils (i.e. organisations representing trade unionists in individual towns
and cities). Such councils were founded in Belfast in 1881 and in Dublin in 1884, and
though primarily concerned with the interests of craft workers, their formation was a
significant step in the overall development of the Irish trade union movement. With the
growing disenchantment of Irish representatives at the lack of priority accorded their
business by the British Trade Union Congress, in 1894 the Irish Trade Union Congress
(ITUC) was established. By 1900 a total of 60,000 workers were members of the ITUC.
However, Boyle (1988: 105) notes that unionisation amongst unskilled workers was
extremely limited, estimating that the total membership of Irish labourers unions did
not exceed 4,000 at any one time over the period 1889 to 1906.
Around this time, the first real efforts in Ireland to organise unskilled workers began.
Together with the lessons learned from the experiences of their British general worker
counterparts from the late 1880s and from their rural countrymen (via the Land League
movement), mass organisation, solidarity and organised struggle arrived on the trade
union agenda at the behest of unskilled general workers. Unlike the craft unions, the
general workers unions were open to all, charged low subscription rates, provided no
mutual benefits, had no control over access to work, were more inclined towards frequent
and aggressive industrial action and retained quite explicit and radical political links.
The struggle to extend union membership and recognition beyond the relatively
privileged craft workers was a bitter and sometimes bloody affair, on occasion involving
the police and army in a series of repressive measures. Major confrontations occurred
in Belfast in 1907, Dublin in 1908, Cork in 1909 and Wexford in 1911 (McNamara et
al. 1994). Directly related to these events was the establishment of the Irish Transport
and General Workers Union (ITGWU) in 1909 by James Larkin. The most renowned
confrontation that this union became involved in was the 1913 Dublin Lockout (Nevin
1994; Yeates 2000). This was sparked by the dismissal (lockout) of 200 tramway workers
who had refused to leave the union. A bitter five-month conflict ensued between the
ITGWU, led by Larkin, and the Dublin Employers Federation, established by the
prominent businessman William Martin Murphy. Within one month of the start of
the lockout, over 400 employers and 25,000 workers were in the throes of a violent
01-03 IR.indd 5 25/03/2013 11:13

confrontation. In the face of police assaults, the workers established a self-defence group
called the Irish Citizens Army. A key tactic of the employer grouping was to effectively
starve the strikers and their families into submission a tactic that was eventually to
prove successful. However, it was arguably a Pyrrhic victory. In the strikes immediate
aftermath, the union reorganised and eventually grew to become the largest trade union
in the country (Larkin 1965). In 1920 the ITGWU recorded a membership of 120,000
(Roche and Larragy 1986), of whom nearly 50,000 were newly recruited farm labourers.
Furthermore, affiliation levels to the ITUC jumped from 110,000 in 1914 to 300,000
by 1921.
The Dublin Employers Federation involved in this dispute had been established in
1911, two years after its Cork counterpart, on which it was modelled. It subsequently
played a major role in the founding in 1942 of the Federated Union of Employers (FUE),
which later changed its name to the Federation of Irish Employers (FIE). In 1992, it
merged with the Confederation of Irish Industry (CII) to become the foremost Irish
employers representative organisation, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation
(IBEC).
By the early twentieth century the central objectives of trade unionism had been clearly
established. Trade unions aimed to secure recognition, procure collective agreements
covering the terms and conditions of employment of their members and influence the
states legislative and policy-making process in such areas as employment conditions,
housing, healthcare, social welfare and education. Effectively, the labour movement
was accepting the emerging industrial society while exerting effort to mould it to its
advantage. This purpose was accompanied by significant changes in the states attitude
towards trade unionism from one of hostility, intransigence and legal suppression
to one of recognition and accommodation, subject to trade unions acceptance of the
main economic, political and social structures of society. Therefore, between 1871 and
1906 the British Parliament passed a series of key enactments, serving to grant legality
to trade unions, protect union funds from court action, recognise collective bargaining
and legalise peaceful picketing.
Economics and Industrial Relations

The policies and practices adopted by Irish trade unions over the years have been
characterised by constant adaptations to the realities of political and economic life.
Changes in these spheres have primarily prompted a reactive and pragmatic response,
as the trade union movement adjusts its priorities, postures and principles in what is
perceived to be in the best interests of its membership and potential membership (the
unemployed) at the time. These are primarily pursued through ICTUs influence on
government policies, such as job creation, pay determination and labour law. While
individual trade unions may participate in this process (either through ICTU or in
an independent capacity), their primary preoccupation is to protect and improve the
pay and conditions of their membership at plant, industry and national levels. Because
of this, some authorities have ascribed the rampant inflation of the 1960s and 1970s,
together with subsequent unemployment levels and the demise of the Celtic Tiger
01-03 IR.indd 6 25/03/2013 11:13

economy, to the unreasonable pay demands and labour market rigidities respectively
sought, secured and imposed by trade unions.
The relatively slow growth of Irish trade unionism in the nineteenth and earlier
part of the twentieth centuries may be attributed to the relatively belated arrival of the
Industrial Revolution to Ireland. The absence of high-grade coal and iron ore, at least in
comparison with Britain, was a contributory factor in this tardy development. However,
one cannot disregard the historical determinants, such as the colonisation of Ireland
by England, which proceeded from the middle of the sixteenth century onwards and
undoubtedly prevented the growth of industry well before the Industrial Revolution.
Such restrictions, which included a spell of tariff impositions and export constraints,
prevailed up until 1922, since Ireland was perceived as not just a political but also an
economic threat to Britain. Consequently, throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries Ireland remained primarily an agricultural economy. In fact, the Cumann na
nGaedheal government of 1922 had no industrial policy, believing agriculture to be
the mainstay of the economy. Half the workforce was in agriculture, food and drink
made up most exports and there was a huge market next door in Britain. The belated
transition to a modern industrial economy was a hesitant and slow process.
Between 1914 and 1920 trade union membership increased from 110,000 to 250,000
(Roche and Larragy 1989), but it declined again with the depression in agriculture and
trade during the 1920s. Enjoying the aforementioned legal tolerance secured by their
British counterparts (which had been incorporated into the new states legislature), trade
unions surfaced hesitantly, addressing themselves to issues of growth, consolidation and
adaptation to the prevalent and primarily hostile economic order. Indeed, such was the
stagnant nature of society and the related lack of vision amongst the nations leadership
that considerable trade union energy was devoted to the establishment and maintenance
of wage differentials, rather than the attainment of any wider economic and social goals.
It could be said that a status, rather than a class, consciousness prevailed.
Throughout the 1930s significant moves towards economic development were made
inside protectionist economic policies. These were designed to promote greater national
economic self-sufficiency and proved effective in securing the development of new
industries and the expansion of older ones. However, the onset of World War II and
the consequent material supplies shortage contributed to a decline of over a quarter of
industrial output during this period. In fact, as late as 1946 agriculture accounted for 47
per cent of total employment, services for 36 per cent and industry for just 17 per cent.
Even that 17 per cent was predominantly characterised by small establishments, so that
by 1958 only forty concerns outside the public service employed more than 500 workers
(Lee 1980). Over the period 1945 to 1950 a short post-war recovery was experienced,
which was accompanied by an increase of about 70 per cent in both strike frequency and
union membership levels.
The recovery of the late 1940s concealed the limitations of the protectionist strategy.
In contrast with the rest of Europe, the 1950s proved to be a miserable decade for
Irish society. Economic performance was disappointing marked by emigration,
unemployment, balance of payments difficulties and virtual stagnation with an
actual decline in national output in the last half of the decade. In OHagans assessment
01-03 IR.indd 7 25/03/2013 11:13

(1987), there was a lack of quality economic policy-making and effective leadership
in both government and civil service at this time. While the level of trade union
membership increased by over 7 per cent during the 1950s (as it benefited from state
intervention in the economy), the level of strike frequency dropped significantly from
its post-war heights, as trade unions resigned themselves to the economys stagnation
or lack of growth. The fact that by 1960 there were 123 operating trade unions of
which 84 had an enrolled membership of less than 1,000 offers some insight into the
priority accorded status or relativity factors by the Irish worker, in preference to class
consciousness or solidarity considerations (Lee 1980).
In the late 1950s Ireland entered a period of sustained economic growth arising from
the adoption of a new development strategy. Economic isolationism and aspirations
for self-sufficiency were abandoned in favour of free trade as Ireland opened a wider
window on the world (MacSharry and White 2000: 357). This was despite the
continued prevalence of obsolete management techniques and primitive employer
worker relationships. The 1960s and early 1970s were periods of sustained and
unprecedented improvements in living standards and considerable economic growth.
There was an emphasis on attracting direct foreign investment through generous
incentives. Commenting on the changing social climate of the 1960s, McCarthy (1973)
suggested that it was a decade of upheaval or period of national adolescence, with the
old authoritarian societal structures facing unprecedented challenges. The demise of the
deferential worker transpired, as previously accepted values, attitudes and institutions
came under challenge. The expansion of educational opportunities and media influences
increased awareness of the outside world and facilitated a greater preparedness to question
previously sacrosanct practices and institutions. Allied to this awakening was an opening
up of educational and social possibilities that were previously denied or non-existent.
Consequent to this economic development with 1,000 foreign operations
comprising a labour force of 87,600 established in Ireland trade union membership
levels rose by nearly 50 per cent between the mid-1960s and the late 1970s, while strike
frequency levels escalated significantly between 1960 and the mid-1970s. The barriers of
pay relativity which had been established were now being reinforced, as both white- and
blue-collar workers engaged in some of the most notorious industrial actions in Irish
industrial relations history as they clamoured to preserve their differentials and position
on the social ladder (McCarthy 1973; McCarthy et al. 1975).
Over the 1960s and 1970s, following in the path of its main trading partners, the
Irish government opted to relegate the laissez-faire approach to economic affairs and
adopt a Keynesian approach to economic growth management and planning. This
involved successive governments stimulating demand through budgetary deficits and
increased expenditure. These yielded higher levels of economic activity and reduced
levels of unemployment. However, this route to the idyllic economy brought with it a
new set of ills. Chief amongst these was the spiralling level of inflation, which the social
partners (government, employers and trade unions) attempted to halt via a series of
national-level pay agreements commencing in 1970. In addition, the surge in economic
confidence brought with it a drift of power to the workplace, with shop stewards
(workplace representatives) dominating the collective bargaining scene at plant level. An
01-03 IR.indd 8 25/03/2013 11:13

upsurge in unofficial strike action (action without official trade union authorisation) also
materialised, as workers seized upon the boom climate created by economic expansion.
By the 1980s two problems of significance had materialised. First, the accumulated
foreign debt had grown (from 126 million in 1972 to 7,900 million by 1985),
bringing with it an increase of over 730 million in annual debt interest payments.
Second, unemployment levels had escalated from about 6 per cent to 17 per cent over
the period 1971 to 1986 with worse to follow. In brief, the Irish economy was under
severe pressure from an explosive national debt, oppressive taxation, high emigration
and rising unemployment. There was a concern amongst Irelands political and banking
community at this time that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) would step in to
impose the economic stringency that the politicians had failed to apply (MacSharry
and White 2000). Once again, following on international trends, the government
opted for fiscal rectitude through monetarist policies, primarily designed to tackle the
balance of payments deficit and the attainment of international competitiveness. The
policies of particular relevance in the industrial relations context included moderate pay
rises and reduced government spending with consequences for welfare benefit levels,
government subsidisation of Irish industry and public sector employment. In effect, this
constituted a neo-laissez-faire economic route, involving reduced state intervention with
the economy left largely to the devices of the marketplace.
The advent of this new realism in the 1980s and early 1990s was accompanied
by reduced trade union bargaining power. This was expressed in falling unionisation
levels, spiralling unemployment, a greater prevalence of non-union employments and
an upsurge in managerial confidence, together with instances of macho management
practices. As the international recession heightened in the early 1990s, a persistent
balance of payments problem, increased unemployment and rising interest rates all
combined to create real constraints and tensions. A consequence of this downturn
was the intensification of divisions within society, as unemployment spiralled and
welfare benefits and services declined. Nevertheless, the various indices used to measure
industrial action or strike levels reveal a general downward trend, accompanied by a
decline in trade union density (the percentage of employees who are union members).
Reflecting on the social and political impact of the crisis of liberal capitalism, Bew et al.
(1989) noted the relative lack of class conflict, radical politics, industrial militancy or
any fundamental change in the nature of Irish society. Ireland remained a conservative
society, imbued with the values of Catholicism, nationalism and ruralism, although
apparently less stridently so than in earlier periods.
By the mid-1990s the Celtic Tiger had arrived, bringing with it a new economic
confidence and aura. This was reflected in such factors as the fastest growth rates in the
European Union (EU), the healthiest exchequer returns ever, a large balance of payments
and current budget surplus, low mortgage interest rates, declining unemployment,
booming profits and incomes and the lowest crime rate for nearly twenty years. Inflation
was below the EU average from 1987 to 1997, although thereafter it drifted above
that level. No economic model had predicted such a reversal of fortune. According
to ODonnell and OReardon (1996), the much needed recovery from the disastrous
early and mid-1980s was largely attributable to the social partnership deals. A relevant
01-03 IR.indd 9 25/03/2013 11:13

feature of the first social partnership agreement was the wage restraint (and industrial
peace) which unions traded in return for an input to the wider economic and social
agenda. According to Roche (2007a), the main thrusts of successive social partnership
agreements since 1987 have been the promotion of economic recovery, the maintenance
of national competitiveness, adjusting to European economic integration and monetary
union and the promotion of improvements in wages, living standards and social services
at levels consistent with economic and political imperatives.
The period of the Celtic Tiger was not a homogenous one. Commentators have
generally distinguished between the period up to 2000 and the period thereafter. Up to
2000 the economic growth was based on a sound economy characterised by increased
competitiveness; thereafter it was based on a property bubble and ever-increasing public
spending. By 2007 the housing market had entered into decline, leaving the banking
system in a perilous state. By September 2008 the government felt forced to intervene in
order to save the banks, and the controversial bank guarantee was introduced.
There was a dramatic turnaround in 2008 and the economy officially entered into
recession in the first half of the year. By the third quarter of 2010 the economy was
contracting. Associated with this contraction, consumption and investment levels
declined, reflecting continued weakness in the demand for housing and domestic services.
Banking bailouts and budgetary cutbacks adversely affected consumer confidence and
unemployment rose to 14.7 per cent by the end of 2010. In response to these deleterious
indicators, the government initiated public sector pay and pension reforms over the
period 2009 to 2010, entering into the Croke Park Agreement 20102014 with public
sector unions. This agreement served to secure co-operation for these (and related work
practice) reforms in exchange for a commitment to no redundancies or further pay cuts.
Consequent to the recession, employers industrial relations focus turned to finding
ways of controlling and reducing pay and headcounts (McMahon 2011). A feature of
this trend is the sense among trade union officials that their role is to rubber stamp
decisions already made by employers, while employees remain largely compliant and
fearful for their livelihoods:
The current recession has led to the collapse of the formal national social
partnership arrangements ushered in during the previous recession The Croke
Park agreement and the joint accord between IBEC on public policy priorities
and private sector pay reflect the legacy of social partnership and its continuing
informal or depleted influence on employment relations in Ireland. (Roche et al.
2011: 245)
In the context of the economic framework, developments in the labour market exert a
significant influence on industrial relations and human resource management policies
and practices. Many of the key influences on such policies and practices are summarised
in Table 1.1.
01-03 IR.indd 10 25/03/2013 11:13

Table 1.1
Key Changes in the Irish Labour Market 19222011
After a lethargic forty-year period subsequent to the foundation of the state (characterised
by a predominantly agricultural economy with high emigration rates) pursuant to modest
industrial development in the 1960s, in the following decade a boom in the economy
transpired, facilitating high levels of employment. In the 1980s a contraction in the
domestic economy led to an employment crisis. In the 1990s employment improved in
the export and international services sector but unemployment rates remained persistently
high. In the 2000s a construction boom occurred in the domestic economy, facilitating full
employment. In the period 2008 to 2011 a contraction of the domestic economy led to an
employment crisis, although the export economy remained relatively stable throughout the
boombust period.
Up to 2008 the size of the (better educated, more skilled) labour force had been constantly
increasing over a period of forty years. Reflecting the change in Irelands economic fortunes
over the period 1971 to 2008, there was an increase of nearly 90 per cent in the size of the
labour force. By 2011, out of a population of almost 4.5 million, 1.8 million were in the
labour force, of whom 86 per cent were employed. This is attributable to a combination
of the underlying growth in the population aged fifteen years and over, increased female
participation rates and immigration. The level of female participation in the labour force
escalated from 28 per cent in 1971 to approximately 52 per cent by 2011. This increased
participation level is particularly evident in retail distribution, insurance, financial/business,
professional and personal services. Reflecting the sizeable immigration trend is the fact that
it more than doubled from 21,000 in 2004 (when EU enlargement took place) to 48,000
in 2007 (CSO 2011). However, consequent to the aforementioned recession, emigration
increased sharply over the period 2010 to 2011, and was estimated to have reached 76,400
in the year to April 2011.
A salient feature of the changing composition of the labour force has been the substantial
shift in employment levels from the agricultural to the services sector. The period
since 1926 has witnessed major changes in the relative employment shares of the three
broad sectors of economic activity: agriculture, industry and services. The diminishing
importance of agriculture is clearly evident, as is the growth of the services sector since
1971. The composition of industrial types of employment has altered significantly, with
contractions in many of the older, labour-intensive, indigenous sub-sectors (e.g. textiles,
clothing and footwear) and expansions in technology-related, export-oriented and foreign-
owned employments. A notable characteristic of the changing sectoral composition of the
labour force is the decline in male manual jobs in the manufacturing sector, alongside a
sizeable increase in the number of (predominantly female) part-time jobs, posing practical
problems for trade union organisers. Alongside increased immigration levels, these
changes also have implications for a host of areas related to industrial relations and human
resource management (HRM). These include labour market segmentation, atypical work
patterns, trade union recognition, working methods, job content, wage differentials,
skill protection practices, the incidence and extent of low pay, job security, downsizing,
subcontracting, outsourcing, job displacement, race to the bottom, the management of
diversity, equal opportunities, decreased union density and collective bargaining strength,
and the protection of collectively agreed pay and employment standards (above legally fixed
minima) and initiatives in respect of (and arising from) protective labour laws.
01-03 IR.indd 11 25/03/2013 11:13

Technological advances generally accompany (if not prompt) major waves of economic and
social change, e.g. the Industrial Revolution. New technologies energising post-industrial
societies are rooted in information technology (IT). The IT revolution is not confined to
the economic sphere of production: it is changing the social, cultural and political arenas
of society at an accelerating rate. The technological impact on matters such as the size,
spread, location and duration of employment is sizeable (e.g. the electronics/information
technology revolution). The quickening pace of technological change has a dramatic impact
on the structure and nature of the labour market and numerous job types therein. A notable
impact of this trend is the aforementioned move away from manual work together with
the ease of workplace relocation. Technology also affects cost structure and consequently
impacts on key aspects of industrial relations, e.g. job security, deskilling, demarcation lines,
reward systems and relative bargaining power positions.
Source: Ahearne (2010) and www.cso.ie
Politics in Industrial Relations

The role of the state in the industrial relations arena has been most significant over the
past century. This has seen it adjust from the casting of trade unions as illegal entities to
an accommodation in a social partnership or neo-corporatist model (see Chapter 13)
with union involvement in the national-level decision-making processes covering the
whole gamut of economic and social affairs. Although the state aspires to the role of
independent referee and regulator of labour relations matters, as it addresses the worst
excesses of liberal capitalism, it would be inappropriate to evaluate its role as only that
of an impartial facilitator. In any democratic society, the state reflects the differences
in power between capital and labour and endeavours to side with whomever yields the
greatest political influence. In effect then, through their various powers and agencies,
successive Irish governments have upheld the established norms, values and culture
of liberal capitalism. Over time, the state has tended to refine the extremes of laissez-
faire ideology and concede some trade union demands, so long as they are peacefully
presented and pursued, constitutional and maintain due deference to property rights
and industrial capitalism.
The Irish Free State inherited the legislative framework laid down in UK statutes
from 1871 to 1906 and these continued to apply so long as they were in accordance with
the 1922 (and later the 1937) Constitution. However, the first Free State government
displayed some disdain for entitlements granted by their British predecessors, as it
proceeded to alienate many working-class voters and rejected the application of Whitley
procedures to Ireland (the provision of arbitration machinery for the civil service).
In line with the eventual adherence to an auxiliary or accommodative strategy, the state
largely supported the voluntarist principle in labour relations by mainly confining legal
interference to the provision of mediation services. Such a strategy, while successfully
isolating trade union militancy and dampening popular support for the route to
revolutionary socialism, forced the trade union movement to (generally) separate and
seek its ideologically driven aspirations through a political wing, e.g. via the Labour
Party or tripartite/corporatist structures such as the social partnership agreements.
01-03 IR.indd 12 25/03/2013 11:13

The Irish Labour Party was established in 1912 at the initiative of James Connolly
and James Larkin at the Trade Union Congress. However, between preoccupations with
the burning national question (which has consumed the overwhelming majority of
political thought and action over many centuries) and a negligible industrial base (at least
until the 1960s), the scope for the development of strong working-class communities
and culture was severely restricted. Of some further relevance to the relatively modest
influence of the Labour Party is the fact that, together with the ITUC, it decided not
to contest the 1918 General Election. According to Kavanagh (1987), this policy of
abstention (since the party sidestepped the independence question) removed Labour
from centre stage in Irish politics for many years.
In any case, a working class consumed by sacrosanct relativities and occupational status
was unlikely to fill the ranks of a vibrant left-wing movement along western European
lines. A striking consequence of this void is that there has been little substantial difference
in policy stances between successive Irish governments on economic and social issues.
Given the ideological similarities across the main political parties and governments,
there has been relatively mild opposition to the directions, policies and actions of the
governmental process.
The absorption of working-class demands into the existing industrial and political
structures has also facilitated the maintenance of widespread support for those parties
representing the values and beliefs of liberal capitalism. Indeed, up to the 1970s the state
adopted such an auxiliary role as it avoided direct coercive interference in the industrial
relations process, leaving the parties to resolve their own differences via free collective
bargaining.
The progressive creation of a welfare state in the decades succeeding World War
II reflected a belief within society that the state should accept responsibility for the
provision of education, health and related social services. This perspective also
dominated in the economic arena, as the government maintained and persisted with
semi-state industries such as the ESB, Aer Lingus and Bord na Mna. Of course, the
gradual creation of a welfare state facilitated the maintenance of political consensus,
stability and legitimacy. The emergence of a corporatist or interventionist ideology
was accompanied by an integration of political, economic and social decision making.
From the 1960s onwards, the states policy of corporate control came into evidence
as trade union representatives were invited onto consultative bodies with a role in
economic planning, notably the National Industrial and Economic Council (NIEC).
The advent of tripartite consultations was adjudged important, given the need for
economic adaptation, restructuring and the establishment of appropriate and realistic
planning targets. The government therefore had to fall back on those interests involved
on the ground in order to acquire the necessary information and understanding as well
as to secure their co-operation in the implementation of policy. The downgrading of
enterprise and sector-wide free collective bargaining and the emergence of national-level
tripartite bargaining (involving government, employers and trade unions) marked a new
phase in the relationship between the state and the trade union movement.
The decision to enter the European Economic Community (EEC) with effect from 1973
was another important development in the political environment of industrial relations.
01-03 IR.indd 13 25/03/2013 11:13

An immediate impact was felt in areas of industrial development and individual labour
law. Indeed, this latter feature has made persistent inroads into almost every facet of day-
to-day interactions at the workplace. Furthermore, the influx of multinational enterprises
is commonly accredited with a greater level of professionalism in the area of personnel
or HRM, together with an increase in trade union membership-cum-preproduction
employment agreements and non-union establishments (McMahon 1990).
The advent of contemporary national-level partnership arrangements, covering a host
of economic (including pay) and social issues, can be traced back to the maintenance
mens dispute of 196970. This was, according to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce,
the greatest crisis in industrial relations ever experienced in the history of the state,
producing a 20 per cent wage rise over eighteen months ( Grda 1997: 103). The
expectations sparked by this settlement promptly raised industrial relations on the
governments agenda. Such a large settlement threatened the governments economic
management aspirations in the desire to control incomes and inflationary pressures, thus
eventually giving rise to the national tripartite arrangements.
Over the 1970s these arrangements had expanded in scope to accommodate a
plethora of economic and social affairs under the title of national understandings. The
temporary demise of the consensus approach at national level during the 1980s can be
primarily attributed to a hardened negotiating stance on the part of both employers and
state. Related to this was a change in government, with the more populist or pragmatic
Fianna Fil party being replaced by a Fine GaelLabour coalition. A subsequent change
of government facilitated the resurgence of the social partnership-type approach
from 1987 onwards, as national-level agreements emerged again to embrace a range
of economic and social issues. However, in this regard it is also pertinent that the
monetarism or neo-laissez-faire economic policies espoused particularly by Thatchers
Conservative government in Britain and Reagans Republican government in the US
prevailed. The choice for the Irish unions, in an era of declining membership and rising
unemployment, spanned probably futile industrial action or participation in the nations
key decision-making forums. The participative model (initiated by Sen Lemass in the
late 1950s) was accepted by the majority of trade unions and employer organisations.
By the early 1990s a persistent international recession and constraints on remedial
initiatives imposed by membership of, and adherence to, the EU and Single European
Market, respectively, combined to signal a new era in the management of industrial
relations. Political developments in many industrialised economies (including the
resurgence of laissez-faire individualism, with its emphasis on monetarism, free
enterprise, open markets, deregulation and privatisation) and the demise of socialist
economies in eastern Europe forced the recall and revision of many left-wing and trade
union ideological aspirations. This helped reinforce for the trade union movement the
merits of operating inside the neo-corporatist model and the furtherance of its more
immediate demands under the auspices of the prevalent liberal capitalist political system.
In return for involvement, trade unions were expected to deliver industrial peace.
This quid pro quo exchange was particularly evident in the Celtic Tiger phase. Given
the contention that in the absence of such (social) partnership agreements, income
determination would have been more fractious, with more strikes and higher pay
01-03 IR.indd 14 25/03/2013 11:13

settlements (Sweeney 1998: 93) and that relative industrial peace prevailed in this
period, various sources accorded social partnership a fundamental role in the economic
miracle (Auer 2000; MacSharry and White 2000; NESC various years; ODonnell
and OReardon 1996, 2000). This role is not unchallenged, however. Baccaro and
Simoni (2004) point out that although the economic transformation began in 1987
and overlapped in time with the institutionalisation of social partnership, much of the
economic literature discounts this overlap as sheer coincidence. It is salutary to note that
the view of social partnership has changed, with critics claiming it contributed to excess
state spending, especially through the benchmarking process within the public sector.
In any case, it is apparent that the social partnership model effectively constituted a
new form of governance or a parallel political system within the state in this era (Roche
2007a). Subsequent to the demise of the Celtic Tiger and the onset of the economic
crisis, the consensus approach to social and economic policy-making faded, while the
formal institutional process governing collective bargaining was dropped. Related to
this, the Taoiseach of the new government (elected in 2011) labelled the shift as one
from social partnership to social dialogue (Sheehan 2011c).
The Role of Theory in Industrial Relations

The role of theory is to facilitate the analysis and appraisal of the processes, structures
and institutions of industrial relations in as objective a manner as is possible with any
of the social sciences. This section of the text attempts to outline and evaluate the
main academic theories that have been developed in an effort to provide a logical and
consistent means of understanding and interpreting industrial relations realities.
Over time there have been a series of prescriptions for change designed to improve
the conduct of industrial relations in Ireland, e.g. laws on strikes, worker participation/
involvement schemes and trade union recognition. Such proposals can often be highly
contentious, and the theoretical principles and value judgments upon which they are
founded are rarely made explicit. Accordingly, this section introduces and assesses the
main theoretical perspectives and related value judgments on the nature of the world
of work. Familiarity with the underlying values of the various theoretical perspectives
facilitates insightful analysis. As each theory originates from a different base or set of
assumptions, it would be inappropriate to insist upon a single best theory of industrial
relations. However, it would be remiss not to acknowledge the traditional primacy of the
pluralist analysis in Irish industrial relations practices and debates.
Pluralist Analysis
The pluralist model is based on the existence of a post-capitalist society, where industrial
and political conflict have become institutionally separated, ownership is distinguished
from management, and authority and power in society are more widely distributed. In
effect, this analysis acknowledges that society is comprised of a range of individuals,
interest and social groups, each in pursuit of their own objectives. As in society, the
employing entity is comprised of an accommodation or alliance of different values
01-03 IR.indd 15 25/03/2013 11:13

and competing sectional interests. So it is only through such an accommodation or

alliance that work organisations can attempt to operate with any degree of continuity
and success. Just as the political system is institutionalised and regulated through a party
political and parliamentary process, so too is the industrial system institutionalised and
regulated through representative organisations and appropriately structured processes.
According to Fox (1973), these competing organisational values and interests have to be
managed for the purpose of maintaining a viable collaborative structure.
This perspective acknowledges the legitimacy of trade union organisation, interests
and the right to contest managerial prerogative. This is done through collective
bargaining, which engenders greater industrial relations stability and adaptability than
the outlawing of trade unions (Clegg 1975). Accordingly, conflict is viewed as a logical
and inevitable feature of the world of work and consequently it requires management by
a variety of role players, representatives, procedures, processes and specialist institutions.
A central feature of this post-capitalist perspective is that the class conflict by-product
of the Industrial Revolution has now abated. The Marxist analysis of the powerful
capitalists and weak wage earners of the socially elite and the socially weak is
(allegedly) no longer an appropriate model. Contemporary society, it is argued, is more
open and mobile, with the franchise (vote) extended for the further democratisation of
politics, greater accessibility of educational opportunity opening hitherto closed occu
pational routes and the advent of the welfare state serving to alleviate the worst extremes
of deprivation and inequality. Furthermore, the spread and diffusion of property
ownership, status and authority in the post-capitalist society has irretrievably removed
the sharp divisions between those who were once industrially and politically powerful
and their counterparts, who were weak and powerless in both these crucial spheres.
With the separation of industrial and political conflict, collective bargaining has
become the focus of attention at the workplace for the regulation of relations. With the
emergence, structuring and regulation of representative organisations on both sides of
industry, appropriate forums have been established to address the tensions and conflicts
arising at all levels between these sectional interest groups. For example, in the event of
failure to resolve differences at plant level, an array of third-party institutions provides
a generally acceptable route for the resolution of contrasting objectives and conflict.
According to Dahrendorf (1959), these developments are well reflected in:
the organisation of conflicting interest groups, e.g. trade unions and employer
associations;
the establishment of parliamentary negotiating bodies in which these groups meet,
e.g. social partnership forums;
the institutions of mediation and arbitration, e.g. the Labour Relations Commission
and Court;
formal representations within the individual enterprise, e.g. via shop stewards/
employee representatives; and
tendencies towards an institutionalisation of workers participation in industrial
management, e.g. consultation initiatives.
01-03 IR.indd 16 25/03/2013 11:13

Therefore, pluralists acknowledge the inevitability of conflict but point to the relative
stability of a society that institutionalises, manages and contains any differences via
collaboration, negotiated compromises and mediation.
Unitary Analysis
The basic premise of the unitary analysis is that all employment units are, or should be,
cohesive and harmonious establishments with a total commitment to the attainment of
a common goal. Being unitary in structure and purpose with shared goals, values and
interests and one source of (managerial) authority staff relations are set upon a plinth of
mutuality and harmony. There is no conflict between those contributing the capital (the
owners) and the contributors of labour (the employees). Consequently, all staff members
agree unreservedly with the aspirations of the organisation and the means deployed
to give effect to them. Through this team or complementary partnership approach,
it is assumed that both sides can satisfy their common goals of high profitability and
pay levels, job security and efficiency. Furthermore, it is implicitly acknowledged that
competent and strong leadership or management are a prerequisite to the pursuit of
organisational effectiveness. In practice this may give rise to elements of paternalism
and/or authoritarianism on the part of management in their approach to employee
relations matters.
Paternalism may be reflected in a managerial concern for staff needs, together with
a rejection of union recognition and collective bargaining practices. Authoritarianism
may also materialise in a dominant managerial value system, characterised by a minimal
concern for employee welfare and outright opposition to union recognition and collective
bargaining initiatives. For example, during the nineteenth century many employers
adopted an aggressive unitary stance, actively excluding unions while employing women
and children on low pay for long hours in unsanitary working conditions. In either
scenario paternalism or authoritarianism trade unionism is opposed as a threat
to the organisations unity of purpose and managerial prerogative, as it competes for
employee loyalty and commitment. The consequent rejection of collective bargaining is
therefore based on managements perceived legitimate prerogative to proceed without
the incumbency of negotiation to attain consent to their decision-making initiatives and
responsibility. In such settings it is assumed that management will insert an appropriate
communications structure to alert staff to organisational priorities and to manage the
expectations of staff in respect of same. In response, members of staff are expected to
give effect to these instructions and to show loyalty to the entity for the realisation of
common goals.
In essence, the unitary theory rejects the concept of enduring conflict or organisational
factionalism, as such collision or competition distracts from what are assumed to be
non-competing, co-operative initiatives. The existence of conflict is not perceived to be
a structural feature of organisational life.
The unitary philosophy is therefore predominantly managerialist. It legitimises
management authority under the heading of commonality, largely attributes the source
of conflict to subordinates and serves as a means of justifying managerial decisions to
01-03 IR.indd 17 25/03/2013 11:13

any interested parties, while explaining opposition to same as either ill-informed or

perverse. Increased levels of opposition to trade union recognition and the associated
rise in the number of non-union establishments have significantly strengthened the
prevalence and validity of this particular model in Ireland. Accordingly, it provides the
subconscious foundation (Salamon 2000) for managers in their choice of issues upon
which they are prepared to negotiate and those upon which they are only prepared to
consult. Furthermore, it provides a raison dtre for many of the now prevalent HRM
practices in Irish employments.
Radical or Class Conflict Analysis

The radical or class conflict perspectives endorse the Marxist view of capitalist societies
being divided into antagonistic class forces. Although Marxist analyses of industrial
relations are more a by-product of a theory of capitalist society and social change rather
than of labour relations, they provide a useful framework for the interpretation of the
relationship between capital and labour. Marxism is more concerned with the structure
and nature of society than with the actual workplaces that society accommodates.
When the original Marxist analysis of the nature and structure of society was conceived,
the phenomena of trade unionism and collective bargaining were barely established.
Consequently, the application of the original Marxist analysis to contemporary labour
relations institutions and phenomena is problematic. Classical Marxism saw capitalism
as an advanced stage in societal development, with class conflict over the distribution of
the surplus value of workers efforts giving rise to irreconcilable antagonism between
capital and labour. It predicted the impoverishment of an ever-growing working class,
eventually leading to revolutionary change.
This body of theory is essentially an analysis of the evolution of society, of which the
capitalist (or bourgeois) state is only one phase. Therefore, Marxism depicts a series of
developments or phases of social change: from the initial state of primitive communism,
through an era of feudalism, to capitalism (which it is predicted would give rise to a class
war between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat), culminating in a dictatorship of the
proletariat before progressing to socialism and eventually a utopian, classless society.
In essence, Marxism is based upon the premise that class (i.e. capital and labour)
conflict is at the root of societal change. This conflict is not a simple consequence of
contrasting demands and tensions at the workplace; it is the product of an inequitable
distribution of power and wealth in wider society. Such inequity is also reflected in
societys social and political institutions, serving to maintain the position of the dominant
establishment group (i.e. the owners of the means of production). Therefore, social and
political conflict (and social change) is the consequence of economic inequity within
society, between the owners/capitalists and the labouring classes. Accordingly, conflict
reflects the difference between these groups, with their diametrically opposed economic
and political interests. This class and political conflict is linked to industrial conflict,
which Marxists adjudge to be a permanent feature of capitalism, as the competing
interests seek to consolidate and advance their relative positions in the economic power
structure, contesting the distribution of the entity or societys power, wealth and surplus
01-03 IR.indd 18 25/03/2013 11:13

value. Hence, the industrial relations system is viewed as a marginal forum for the
conduct of this class war, although some Marxists suggest that it will ultimately spill over
into a more fundamental political revolution.
Neo-Marxist and radical sources attribute the industrial relations system with a
limited role, via the resolution of pay and condition issues and the delineation of the
boundaries of managerial prerogative, although conflict is seen as a reflection of the
opposing economic interests engendered by capitalism. The starting point for those
holding the radical reference frame is the largely unequal distribution of power between
the employer and the employee, while radicals do not see the collective organisation of
employees (e.g. in unions) as restoring the power balance between the propertied and
the unpropertied.
Radical writers (e.g. Fox 1977) suggest that conflict is contained and stability
maintained by the social and political system and associated trade-offs. In other words,
the institutions of industrial relations serve to institutionalise conflict. In this context,
unions are viewed as a collective response to the exploitation of capitalism, with a role in
the wider political process for the attainment of significant alterations to the economic
and social system. However, Marxists adjudge the operation of (national, industrial
and enterprise-based) bodies of joint regulation as accommodating, consolidating,
legitimising and effectively enhancing managements prerogative and power position,
while projecting an image or veneer of power sharing. The collective bargaining process
is perceived to (at least temporarily) accept, facilitate and ultimately support the
inherent contradictions of capitalism. Furthermore, Marxists view the states legislative
framework as a related piece of armoury designed to support managements interests
(Hyman 1975).
In summary, Marxists argue that economic and political issues cannot be separated
and they place great emphasis on the antagonistic interests of capital and labour. In
sharp contrast with alternative analytical frameworks, this theoretical perspective focuses
on the importance of assessing the power held by opposing interests and so offers a
valuable insight into the mechanics of the industrial relations system.
Social Action Analysis

The social action perspective on industrial relations stresses that the individual retains
at least some freedom of action and ability to influence events in the manner they
adjudge to be most appropriate or preferable (Jackson 1982). This theory emphasises
the role players or actors definitions, perceptions and influences on reality. It is these
definitions and perceptions that determine, in part, their relationships, behaviours and
actions. Therefore, with this frame of reference, social and industrial relations actions
are best understood in terms of their subjectively intended meanings. Concentration
on observed behaviour at the workplace restricts the value of any interpretation, since it
would overlook the deeper intent of the actors. The actors decisions are determined not
just by the specific work situations they find themselves in, but by a plethora of wider
and underlying influences such as the attitudes, values, experiences and expectations
developed over a lifetime, both inside and outside of the workplace. The central relevance
01-03 IR.indd 19 25/03/2013 11:13

of this particular perspective is that it attributes to the individual actors some prerogative
or discretion to shape the actual workplace and society in which they exist along (their)
desired lines. However, in this context, they are restricted by their own perception of
reality. Thus, the social action analysis accords some control or priority to the individual
over the structure or system in which they find themselves. It offers a frame of reference
that concentrates on the range of industrial relations system outputs as being as much
the end result of the actions of its constituent parts as of the structure of the system
itself. This theory is rooted in a well-developed sociological school of thought which
argues that just as society makes man man makes society (Silverman 1970). The
impact on Irish industrial relations of people like James Larkin and William Martin
Murphy arguably provides support for the social action view that individuals have a
capacity to influence and shape events.
Systems Analysis
The systems theory of industrial relations originated in the late 1950s in the US when
John Dunlop proposed that industrial relations is a system made up of actors, contexts
and an ideology serving to bind the system together, producing a body of rules that
govern the actors at the workplace (Dunlop 1958). Dunlops construction of an
integrated model is based on a view of the system as one which, though overlapping and
interacting with the economic and political decision-making systems, is nevertheless
a societal subsystem in its own right. This subsystems output or product is comprised
of a set of rules pertaining to the employment relationship, which spans their design,
application and interpretation. Accordingly, the industrial relations system is primarily
concerned with an output of rules covering all matters of pay and conditions, together
with the installation of procedures for their administration and application. It is based
on the standard inputprocessoutput model, which Dunlop argues may be applied
regardless of the prevailing economic or political system.
Under input, three sets of influences apply: actors, environmental contexts and ideology.
These combine in the bargaining, conciliation and legislative processes, yielding a body,
network or web of rules. The actors include the different worker categories (whether
organised or unorganised), various layers of management (together with their respective
representatives) and the range of third-party agencies. The environmental context
impinging on the system is comprised of technological, market/budgetary and societal
power location and distribution variables. The technological impact is reflected in such
factors as the size, skill and sexual breakdown of the workforce, its concentration or
distribution and the location and duration of the employment. The market or budgetary
constraints, whether applied locally, nationally or internationally, affect all enterprise
types not just the entitys management but also, ultimately, all of the systems role
players. The power input relates to the degree of autonomy afforded to the industrial
relations system by wider society, as significantly influenced by the distribution of power
in that society. The ideological input recognises that while each group of actors in the
system may have their own set of ideas, these are sufficiently congruent for a level of
mutual tolerance, common belief or unifying ideological compatibility to prevail.
01-03 IR.indd 20 25/03/2013 11:13

Conclusion and Critique of Models

Given their contrasting premises and prognoses, the various models of industrial
relations are the subject of critical evaluation. For example, despite its prevalence,
the pluralist analysis has been criticised for its undue emphasis on consensus and
integration, alongside a ready acceptance of the social and political status quo and a
fundamental conservatism which assumes an illusory balance of power between the
various interest groups (Fox 1973; Goldthorpe 1974). Furthermore, it tends to ignore
the decision-making powers resident beyond the collective bargaining process. In this
regard, radical theorists point out that power is also about the ability to prevent matters
becoming the subject of negotiation. Yet unlike both the unitary and Marxist theories,
pluralism appears less value driven, though it does veer towards prescriptions favouring
the constant negotiation of conflicts based on compromise (Clegg 1975).
The unitary perspective is cautioned for its unrealistically utopian outlook, limited
applicability (e.g. to non-union entities) and a paternalistic, management orientation
that assumes a generally accepted value system. Indeed DArt and Turners overview of
Irish industrial relations serves as a sturdy challenge to this perspective. Their findings
support the case for the utility and continuing relevance of trade unions and collective
bargaining (2002: 303).
The classic Marxist analysis is adjudged to be anachronistic given that, among other
things, the nature of class conflict has substantially changed and contemporary society
(with its mixed economy and welfare state) is now more open and socially mobile.
The distribution of power, property and social status in society is also more widely
diffused today (at least in the developed world) than it was in the nineteenth century.
Furthermore, capitalism has been successful in developing wealth in certain parts of
the globe, though the distribution of that wealth remains an issue with which many
neo-Marxists and radical writers take issue. It is also pertinent that revolution came to
pass not in the developed West but in the less developed East. In addition, a number of
predictions of classical Marxism have failed to materialise, although the growth of large-
scale business or monopoly capital is one area of Marxist analysis with contemporary
resonance, as is the current international economic and financial crisis (Resnick and
Wolff 2010). In drawing attention to the nature of power and control in the workplace
and society, the neo-Marxist and radical analysis presents a valuable intellectual challenge
to unitarist and pluralist thinking.
With regard to social action theory, critics point to its neglect of those structural
features that influence the action of its actors. This oversight reflects the theorys inability
to explain the very nature of the wider system inside which these actions occur.
Systems theory has also been subjected to considerable critical evaluation, refinement
and modification (Gennard and Judge 2010). For example, it is contended that the
models narrow focus omits the reality of and mechanisms for the distribution of
wealth and power in society. In effect, its convenient unifying ideology-cum-status
quo inclination (which takes society as given) merely accords the industrial relations
system some functional role in the maintenance of stability and overlooks a range of
issues, including industrial relations change, the source of conflict and the systems
interrelationship with the outside political, economic and social scene. It is also argued
01-03 IR.indd 21 25/03/2013 11:13

that its structural emphasis leads to an output, or rules focus, at the expense of the
actual decision, or rule-making processes. It also fails to explain important behavioural
variables (i.e. why actors act as they do) and it is suggested that this model ought to
accommodate the significant role of the owners of business, who warrant inclusion as
actors and in their contextual capacity. Wood (1978) also recommends that a distinction
be made between the (industrial relations) system which produces the rules and the
(production) system which is governed by these rules.
Concluding Comments
Far from being a subject based on a single analytical framework or a set of incontrovertible
facts and statistics, political and theoretical controversy is inherent to the subject
of industrial relations. There are many ways of interpreting what is going on and a
multitude of opinions about what ought to be happening. The fact that there is no
universally accepted global theory is unavoidable and ought to be accepted by the student
as an attractive dimension to a topic that easily lends itself to contrasting perspectives,
opinions and debate. It is for the student to make up their own mind on these matters,
since this book endeavours to take a neutral line, presenting the different sides of the
various issues under examination.
01-03 IR.indd 22 25/03/2013 11:13

Industrial Relations in Ireland 4th Ed - Look Inside Sample

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Industrial Relations in Ireland 4th Ed - Look Inside Sample

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Contents

Chapter 1 Industrial Relations: a Contextual and Theoretical Overview

Chapter 2 Collective Labour Law in a Historical, Social and Political

00 IR.indd 5 25/03/2013 11:12

The Industrial Relations Acts 20012004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Chapter 3Trade Unions

Chapter 4Employer Organisations

00 IR.indd 6 25/03/2013 11:12

Chapter 5Dispute Resolution and Wage-setting Institutions

Chapter 6 Individual Employment Law

00 IR.indd 7 25/03/2013 11:12

Minimum Notice Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Chapter 7 Collective and Individual Workplace Procedures

Chapter 8The Management of Industrial Relations

00 IR.indd 8 25/03/2013 11:12

Chapter 9The Nature of Industrial Conflict

Chapter 10Strikes and Lockouts as Forms of Organised Conflict

00 IR.indd 9 25/03/2013 11:12

00 IR.indd 10 25/03/2013 11:12

Finding a Bridge Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Chapter 12Employee Involvement, Employee Participation and Workplace

Chapter 13National Collective Bargaining

00 IR.indd 11 25/03/2013 11:12

The Development of Irish Collective Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

00 IR.indd 12 25/03/2013 11:12

Introduction: What Do We Mean by Industrial Relations?

01-03 IR.indd 1 25/03/2013 11:13

01-03 IR.indd 2 25/03/2013 11:13

Unitary Pluralist Marxist

National level Organisation level Sectoral/industrial level

Trade unions Conflict Co-operation Employer associations

Unionised Collective bargaining Top management

The Contextual Setting of Industrial Relations

01-03 IR.indd 3 25/03/2013 11:13

History and Industrial Relations

01-03 IR.indd 4 25/03/2013 11:13

01-03 IR.indd 5 25/03/2013 11:13

Economics and Industrial Relations

01-03 IR.indd 6 25/03/2013 11:13

01-03 IR.indd 7 25/03/2013 11:13

01-03 IR.indd 8 25/03/2013 11:13

01-03 IR.indd 9 25/03/2013 11:13

01-03 IR.indd 10 25/03/2013 11:13

01-03 IR.indd 11 25/03/2013 11:13

Source: Ahearne (2010) and www.cso.ie

Politics in Industrial Relations

01-03 IR.indd 12 25/03/2013 11:13

01-03 IR.indd 13 25/03/2013 11:13

01-03 IR.indd 14 25/03/2013 11:13

The Role of Theory in Industrial Relations

01-03 IR.indd 15 25/03/2013 11:13

and competing sectional interests. So it is only through such an accommodation or

01-03 IR.indd 16 25/03/2013 11:13

01-03 IR.indd 17 25/03/2013 11:13

any interested parties, while explaining opposition to same as either ill-informed or

Radical or Class Conflict Analysis

01-03 IR.indd 18 25/03/2013 11:13

Social Action Analysis

01-03 IR.indd 19 25/03/2013 11:13

01-03 IR.indd 20 25/03/2013 11:13

Conclusion and Critique of Models

01-03 IR.indd 21 25/03/2013 11:13

01-03 IR.indd 22 25/03/2013 11:13

Вам также может понравиться